Sentencing Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind Members that in Committee, they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable.

Before I call the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) to move amendment 46, I should advise the Committee that once that amendment has been disposed of at the end of the debate, I am provisionally minded to call the following amendments and new clauses for separate decision: amendment 24, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan); new clause 6, in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty); new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle; and new clause 30, in the name of the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller).

Clause 1

Presumption of suspended sentence order for sentences of 12 months or less

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out “not more” and insert “less”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 47, page 1, line 14, after “months” insert

“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.

Amendment 50, page 1, line 17, after “order” insert

“with the maximum operational period”.

This would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.

Government amendments 2 and 3.

Amendment 48, page 3, line 8, after “individual” insert “or the public”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at significant risk of harm.

Amendment 49, page 3, line 8, after “at” leave out “significant”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at risk of harm.

Amendment 51, page 4, line 3, leave out “not more” and insert “less”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences of less than 12 months.

Amendment 52, page 4, line 3, after “12 months” insert

“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea (typically one third).

Amendment 55, page 4, line 6, after “order” insert

“with the maximum operational period”.

This would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.

Amendment 36, page 4, line 11, at end insert

“, or the court is of the opinion that, having considered the basis of opinion provisions in section 77 Sentencing Act 2020, it should mitigate the sentence to one of a community sentence as provided for in that section.”

Government amendments 4 and 5.

Amendment 53, page 5, line 15, after “individual” insert “or the public”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at significant risk of harm.

Amendment 54, page 5, line 15, leave out “significant”.

The presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put an individual or the public at risk of harm.

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Amendment 29, in clause 3, page 10, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—

“(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), “monthly income” means monthly income after deduction of—

(a) such amounts as are required to be paid or deducted from the offender’s income under, or by virtue of, any enactment, or

(b) such amounts as may be specified in the regulations.”

This amendment changes the definition of “monthly income” for the purposes of income reduction orders so that any amount of money that is required to be paid or deducted from an offender’s monthly income as a result of other enactments (such as child support maintenance payments or under an attachment of earnings order) is not counted for those purposes.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 14, line 4, after “(including victims of crime” insert “, ensuring their protection from further physical or psychological harm”.

This amendment would amend the statutory purposes of sentencing to incorporate safeguarding victims from further physical or psychological harm.

Clauses 4 and 5 stand part.

Amendment 30, in clause 6, page 14, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—

“(1) This section applies if—

(a) a court is passing sentence for an offence,

(b) the court has indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse, and

(c) having regard to any evidence and any representations that are made by or on behalf of the offender or the prosecution, the court is of the view that the offence involved domestic abuse.”

This amendment introduces two procedural safeguards before a court can record that an offence involved domestic abuse: first, the court must have indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse; and, second, the court must have given an opportunity to the offender and prosecution to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that an offence involved domestic abuse.

Government amendments 6 to 8.

Amendment 31, page 15, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert—

“(1) This section applies if—

(a) a court or officer is passing sentence for an offence,

(b) the court or officer has indicated that it appears the offence may have involved domestic abuse, and

(c) having regard to any evidence and any representations that are made by or on behalf of the offender or the prosecution, the court or officer is of the view that the offence involved domestic abuse.”

This amendment introduces two procedural safeguards before a court can record that a service offence involved domestic abuse: first, the court must have indicated that it appears the service offence may have involved domestic abuse; and, second, the court must have given an opportunity to the offender and prosecution to adduce evidence and make representations before coming to the view that the service offence involved domestic abuse.

Government amendments 9 to 11.

Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

Government amendment 12.

Clause 8 stand part.

Government amendment 13.

Clauses 9 to 12 stand part.

Government amendments 14 and 15.

Clauses 13 to 15 stand part.

Government amendments 16 and 17.

Clauses 16 to 19 stand part.

Amendment 24, in clause 20, page 37, line 14, at end insert—

“(ab) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) do not apply to any person convicted of—

(a) rape;

(b) assault by penetration;

(c) rape of a child under 13;

(d) assault of a child under 13 by penetration;

(e) inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity;

(f) paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13;

(g) kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence;

(h) creating or possessing indecent photographs of children;

(i) grievous bodily harm;

(j) grooming;

(k) stalking;

(l) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult; or

(m) death by dangerous driving, and

(ac) but sections 244ZA(8)(a) and (aa) cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has consulted on and ensured exclusions for all offences considered to be serious violence, offences against children, sexual offences and domestic abuse offences, and”.

This amendment would disapply the clause 20 early release provisions of the Bill in relation to those convicted of the offences listed in the amendment, and would require the Secretary of State to consult on and ensure exclusions for those convicted of other serious violent and sexual offence categories.

Clauses 20 to 23 stand part.

Amendment 41, in clause 24, page 46, leave out lines 20 to 23.

This amendment would leave out the Bill’s provision to give probation officers more discretion in relation to licence conditions.

Amendment 34, page 46, line 23, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (4A) insert—

‘(4B) In exercising any power under subsection (4)(b), the Secretary of State must have regard to any representations made by the offender.’”

This amendment introduces a right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations as to their necessity and proportionality.

Amendment 35, page 46, line 23, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (4A) insert—

‘(4B) The Secretary of State must not include a condition under subsection (4)(b)(di) (a restriction zone condition) in a licence, either on release or subsequently, or vary or cancel any such condition included in a licence, unless the Board directs the Secretary of State to do so (and must, if the Board so directs, include, vary or cancel such a condition).’”

This amendment introduces a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones which will confine offenders to specific areas in the community while on licence.

Amendment 44, page 48, line 17, at end insert—

“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (4) of this section, undertake an assessment of the potential effects of a driving prohibition condition on a person’s ability to attend—

(a) employment,

(b) education, or

(c) a rehabilitation programme.

(11) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the assessment carried out under subsection (10) including recommendations on—

(a) offender rehabilitation,

(b) offender reintegration, and

(c) any other matters that the Secretary deems appropriate.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before commencing the driving prohibition provisions in the Bill, to publish a report on their potential effects on the ability of ex-offenders to attend employment, education and rehabilitation providers.

Amendment 45, page 48, line 17, at end insert—

“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (7) of this section, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on a person’s ability to attend—

(a) employment,

(b) education, or

(c) a rehabilitation programme.

(11) The court may provide for exemptions in a restriction zone condition to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.

(12) A probation officer may vary a restriction zone condition imposed by the court to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.

(13) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on—

(a) the number of people subject to a restriction zone condition,

(b) the number of cases where a restriction zone condition has included an exemption or modification to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme, and

(c) evidence on the effects of restriction zone conditions on reoffending and rehabilitation.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before implementing the relevant provisions, to assess the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on an ex-offender’s ability to attend education, employment or a rehabilitation programme. It would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, and require an annual report on their use and effectiveness.

Clauses 24 and 25 stand part.

Amendment 33, in clause 26, page 50, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 254 (recall of prisoners while on licence), in subsection (1) after ‘prison’ insert—

‘where there is evidence of consistent non-compliance with licence conditions or a specific and imminent risk of harm.’”

This amendment gives effect to the recommendation 4.3 of the Independent Sentencing Review for “stricter criteria and thresholds” for recall.

Clauses 26 to 28 stand part.

Amendment 22, in clause 29, page 55, line 5, leave out “both” and insert “more”.

This amendment is linked to NC5 and amendment 23.

Amendment 23, page 55, line 27, at end insert—

“(8A) The third condition is that the basis for P’s recall is that P has breached a license condition, civil order, or criminal order in relation to the victim of the crime for which P is serving the sentence in question.”

This amendment is linked to NC5 and amendment 22.

Clauses 29 to 34 stand part.

Amendment 32, in clause 35, page 65, line 33, at end insert—

“(7) Before making regulations under section 46 to bring this section into force, the Secretary of State must issue a code of practice giving guidance to providers of probation services about how to discharge those functions lawfully having regard to—

(a) section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and

(b) the data protection legislation (see section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018).

(8) The Secretary of State may not issue a code of practice under subsection (7) unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has consulted providers of probation services and any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate about a draft of the code,

(b) the Secretary of State has laid a draft of the code before each House of Parliament, and

(c) each House of Parliament has by a resolution approved the draft of the code.”

This amendment prevents clause 35 from being brought into force until the Secretary of State has issued a code of practice to providers of probation services about how to take and publish photographs lawfully in light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the data protection legislation. Before issuing a code of practice, the Secretary of State must consult providers of probation services, lay a draft before Parliament and obtain approval from both Houses.

Clauses 35 to 44 stand part.

Government amendment 19.

Clause 45 stand part.

Government amendment 20.

Clauses 46 and 47 stand part.

Government new clause 1—Deportation of foreign criminals—

New clause 2—Electronic monitoring: oversight—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In Part 14 of Schedule 9, in paragraph 31 (Electronic monitoring: person responsible for monitoring), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

‘(3) Regulations under this section must ensure that—

(a) electronic monitoring is overseen by the Probation Service;

(b) the fitting of necessary apparatus for the purposes of electronic monitoring may only be undertaken by those in the employment of an organisation with responsibility for delivering electronic monitoring; and

(c) the fitting of necessary apparatus may not be undertaken by an employee of HM Prison and Probation Service unless the responsibility for the delivery of electronic monitoring is held solely by HM Prison and Probation Service.’”

This new clause would ensure that the probation service oversees electronic monitoring, and that prison officers would not be responsible for fitting tags unless tagging contracts are brought into the public sector.

New clause 3—Unpaid work requirements: community work—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 9 (Restriction on imposing unpaid work requirement), after sub-paragraph (1)(b) insert—

‘(c) that the unpaid work is work undertaken for a non-profit organisation, social enterprise, voluntary organisation or local authority.”’

This new clause would prohibit private sector involvement in unpaid work as part of a community sentence.

New clause 4—Probation capacity: independent report—

“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, a report must be published and laid before Parliament by HM Inspectorate of Probation (‘the Inspectorate’) determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service to meet provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service.

(2) If the report under subsection (1) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service may not come into force until a further report determines that the Probation Service has adequate capacity.

(3) Following a report under subsection (1), the Inspectorate must publish and lay before Parliament a further report, no less than once every twelve months, determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service.

(4) If a report under subsections (1) or (3) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, the Inspectorate may direct that a prioritisation framework must be issued to the areas in which the capacity concerns apply, in order to provide local services with guidance about which activities to deprioritise.

(5) The Secretary of State must, within two weeks of the laying of a report under subsections (1) or (3) with a finding of inadequate capacity, make a statement to Parliament setting out how probation capacity will be increased to an adequate level.”

This new clause would ensure that the provisions of this Bill likely to increase demand on the Probation Service cannot be implemented until HM Inspectorate of Probation determines that there is adequate capacity to address those demands, and would enable the Inspectorate to trigger the issuing of a prioritisation framework to help local areas to identify which activities to deprioritise.

New clause 5—Further release after recall: offenders eligible for risk-assessed release—

“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 255C, after subsection (3) insert—

(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if the basis for P’s recall is that P has breached a license condition, civil order, or criminal order in relation to the victim of a crime for which P is serving a sentence.

(3B) Where this subsection applies—

(a) at the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the day on which P returns to custody, P must be considered for referral for executive release rather than automatic release;

(b) if P is referred for consideration for executive release, the Secretary of State may release P again on licence, and

(c) if P is not referred for consideration for executive release, or if P is denied executive release, the Secretary of State must refer P’s case to the Board.”

This new clause, along with amendments 22 and 23, would ensure that offenders who have been recalled to prison on the basis of a breach of license condition or of an order related to the victim are risk-assessed, to determine whether it is safe for them to be re-released into the community, rather than being automatically released after 56 days.

New clause 6—Lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—

“(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under sections 1, 2B, 3ZB, 3ZC or 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Sentencing Code (Driving disqualification), the driver must be banned from driving for life.”

This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous or careless driving (or related offences) would be banned from driving for life.

New clause 7—Under-18 anonymity for cases involving serious crime—

“(1) This section applies where a person (‘P’) aged under 18—

(a) has been convicted of an offence; and

(b) will receive a custodial sentence of four or more years.

(2) Where this section applies, prior to delivering sentencing remarks, the court must lift any reporting restrictions identifying P.

(3) This section applies notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter IV of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.”

This new clause would require reporting restrictions to be lifted at the point of sentencing for young offenders who have received a sentence of four or more years.

New clause 8—Victim personal statements—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.

(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.

(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.

New clause 9—Duty to collect and publish data on sentencing—

“(1) Within 24 hours of the conclusion of the passing of a sentence, the relevant court must provide HM Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) with information regarding—

(a) the offence category;

(b) the sentence length; and

(c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations, but which must include—

(i) nationality,

(ii) sex at birth,

(iii) country of birth,

(iv) method of entry to the United Kingdom,

(v) visa route,

(vi) visa status, and

(vii) asylum status.

(2) HMCTS must collect and record the information set out in subsection (1) in a safe and secure manner.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish statistics on the information set out in subsection (1) no less than once every three months.”

This new clause would require HMCTS to collect data and other information on sentencing and sentenced offenders, and would require the Government to publish statistics on that data every three months.

New clause 10—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—

“(1) All transcripts of sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.

(2) All published sentencing remarks must be made freely available, including online.”

This new clause would require all sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court to be published and made available to all.

New clause 11—Prohibited steps orders—

“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 8 (Child arrangements orders and other orders with respect to children), in the closing words of subsection (3), after ‘include’ insert ‘proceedings in the Crown Court or Magistrate’s Court under section 10A or’.

(3) After section 10 insert—

‘10A Duty of a sentencing court to make a prohibited steps order in respect of sexual offences

(1) This section applies where an offender has parental responsibility for a child and the offender is convicted of a sexual offence involving any child victim.

(2) Where this section applies, a court must make a prohibited steps order when sentencing the offender.

(3) A prohibited steps order made under this section must—

(a) cease to have effect if an offender is acquitted on appeal for the offence in relation to which the prohibited steps order was imposed; and

(b) continue to have effect during an offender’s licence period after release for the relevant offence.

(4) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (Proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.’”

This new clause would require the courts to make a “prohibited steps order” (PSO) – preventing a parent from taking a specific action or set of actions regarding their child – after the conviction of a person with parental responsibilities for a sexual offence involving a child victim.

New clause 12—Unduly lenient sentences scheme: victims—

“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) An application may be made to the Attorney General to review any sentence passed by a Crown Court under the terms set out in this section.

(2B) An application under subsection (2A) must be made within—

(a) one year of the sentence being passed, if the application is made by—

(i) the victim of the offence for which the sentence was passed; or

(ii) the next of kin of a deceased victim or a victim who lacks capacity; or

(b) 56 days of the sentence being passed, if made by any other person.

(2C) The Crown Prosecution Service must write to—

(a) any victim of any offence for which a sentence has been passed in the Crown Court; or

(b) the next of kin of any deceased victim;

within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, to provide details of the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, the application process for the scheme, and the deadlines set out in subsection (2B) of this section.’”

This new clause would extend the deadline for applications to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days, or for a year for victims of crime (or the next of kin of deceased victims). It would also require the CPS to notify victims about the scheme.

New clause 13—Sexual offences: offender personality disorder pathway—

“(1) The Prison Rules 1999 are amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 20 (Health services), after sub-paragraph (1), insert—

‘(1A) Provision under subsection (1) must include access, for all eligible prisoners serving custodial sentences for sexual offences, to services provided under the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway.’”

This new clause would require the Government to provide access to the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway to all eligible prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences.

New clause 14—Sexual offences: chemical suppression—

“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on how most effectively to introduce mandatory chemical suppression for certain individuals serving sentences for sexual offences, with appropriate legal and clinical safeguards.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on mandatory chemical suppression for certain sex offenders.

New clause 15—Sentencing Council: abolition—

“(1) The Sentencing Council (established under section 118 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) is abolished.

(2) The Secretary of State may prepare—

(a) sentencing guidelines which may be general in nature or limited to a particular offence, particular category of offence or particular category of offender;

(b) sentencing guidelines about the discharge of a court's duty under section 73 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentences for guilty pleas); and

(c) sentencing guidelines about the application of any rule of law as to the totality of sentences.

(3) The Secretary of State may prepare sentencing guidelines about any other matter.

(4) When developing sentencing guidelines, the Secretary of State must—

(a) promote understanding of, and public confidence in, the sentencing and criminal justice system;

(b) consult Parliament on all draft guidelines; and

(c) publish the reasons for proposing any guidelines that could result in an offender receiving a shorter sentence than that set out in an Act of Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State may report, from time to time, on the impact of sentencing guidelines on sentencing practice.

(6) The Secretary of State must monitor—

(a) the application of the sentencing guidelines; and

(b) the impact on victims of sentencing decisions.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’

This new clause would abolish the Sentencing Council, give the Secretary of State the power to publish Sentencing guidelines, and impose various requirements linked to consultation and monitoring.

New clause 16—Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after ‘duty,’, insert ‘or if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police officer or prison officer’s current or former duties,’”

This new clause would expand the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a whole life order for murdering a prison or police officer, to include murder motivated by the victim's current or former duties.

New clause 17—Management of offenders: devolution to Wales—

“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In Paragraph 175 (Prisons and offender management)—

(a) omit sub-paragraph (2); and

(b) in sub-paragraph (3), omit ‘probation’

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”

This new clause seeks to devolve probation services and offender management to Wales, by removing it from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006.

New clause 18—Reporting on use of electronic monitoring requirements—

“In the Sentencing Code, in Part 14 of Schedule 9 (electronic monitoring), after paragraph 35 insert—

‘36(1) The Secretary of State must as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each calendar year prepare a report on the imposition of the electronic monitoring requirements during that year.

(2) The report must set out—

(a) the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed during the year;

(b) the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed on offenders under 18 during the year;

(c) the rate of compliance with the electronic monitoring requirements during the year;

(d) the cost of administering the electronic monitoring requirements during the year;

(e) the average amount of time taken during the year to activate a device used for the purposes of an electronic monitoring requirement after such a requirement took effect;

(f) the number of devices used for the purposes of the electronic monitoring requirements that malfunctioned during the year.

(3) The Secretary of State must—

(a) publish the report, and

(b) lay a copy of the published report before Parliament.’”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report each calendar year on the use of electronic monitoring requirements. The report must include the number of electronic monitoring requirements imposed each year, the rate of compliance and the cost of administering the requirements each year. The report must be laid before Parliament.

New clause 19—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements to ensure that every person serving an IPP sentence, whether in prison or the community, has been re-sentenced in accordance with this section within 24 months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) The Lord Chancellor must establish a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).

(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must—

(a) include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice; and

(b) within 12 months of being appointed, lay a report before Parliament on the process of re-sentencing individuals serving an IPP sentence.

(4) The Lord Chancellor may disband the committee established under subsection (2) after a report has been laid under subsection (3)(b).

(5) The Lord Chancellor must disband the committee once all those serving IPP sentences have been re-sentenced under this section.

(6) Subject to subsection (8), a Crown Court designated by the Lord Chancellor (“the re-sentencing court”) must re-sentence a person serving an IPP sentence in relation to the offence or offences for which they were previously sentenced to an IPP sentence.

(7) The re-sentencing court must not impose a sentence more severe than the notional determinate sentence upon which the IPP sentence was based.

(8) The re-sentencing court may confirm the IPP sentence only if—

(a) the re-sentencing court determines that, at the date of the original sentencing, ignoring the alternative of an IPP sentence, the person serving the IPP sentence might appropriately have received a whole life order under section 321 of the Sentencing Act 2020; and

(b) at the date of re-sentencing, there is a substantial risk of P committing a further offence if released.

(9) The re-sentencing court may only confirm an IPP sentence where the judge hearing the matter is authorised to try cases of murder.

(10) The re-sentencing court may recommend that the re-sentenced person may be subject to an extended licence, if the re-sentencing court considers this appropriate.

(11) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (6)—

(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020;

(b) the Sentencing Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).

(12) The Lord Chancellor must, at the end of every twelve-month period beginning with the day this section comes into force, lay before Parliament a report that sets out—

(a) the number of persons who have been re-sentenced under subsection (6);

(b) the number of persons who have had their sentences confirmed under subsection (8).

(13) For the purposes of this section, “IPP sentence” means—

(a) a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; or

(b) a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; or

(c) a sentence of indeterminate imprisonment or detention passed as a result of sections 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006;

(14) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Select Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.

New clause 20—Provision for a prisoner to apply to the Parole Board for a licence termination review following expiry of the qualifying period on annual basis—

“(1) The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 31A (imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences), after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) Where—

(a) the prisoner has been released on licence under this Chapter;

(b) the qualifying period has expired; and

(c) if his case has been considered for termination previously by the Parole Board and a period of at least twelve months has expired since the disposal of that application,

the prisoner may make an application to the Parole Board under this subsection.’

(3) In subsection (4)—

(a) after ‘reference’ insert ‘or application’;

after ‘subsection (3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’.”

This new clause would allow a prisoner whose licence has not been terminated by the Parole Board two or three years after their first release to make an application annually to the Parole Board for termination. This would increase the opportunities for licences to be terminated.

New clause 21—Further release after recall: requirement for a review—

“(1) Before sections 27 to 30 come into force, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effectiveness of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025, including but not limited to—

(a) an evaluation of its impact on—

(i) public protection;

(ii) rehabilitation;

(iii) reconviction;

(iv) probation capacity and resource; and

(b) an assessment of how any learning from the evaluation specified in subsection (1)(a) will be applied to the implementation of the provisions of sections 27 to 30 of this Act.

(2) A copy of the review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause provides an opportunity for the current legislation for recall to be reviewed prior to new legislation being rolled out, to ensure it is effective and adequately protects the public.

New clause 22—Review of sentence following a change in law—

“(1) Where a person is serving or subject to a sentence imposed for an offence, and—

(a) the offence has been abolished, or

(b) there has been a change in the law which materially alters the sentence that would be imposed for the same offence following that change in the law,

that person may apply to the sentencing court, or to such other court as may be prescribed, for a review of the sentence.

(2) On such an application, the court may—

(a) quash the sentence and resentence the person in accordance with the existing law; or

(b) make such other order as necessary in the interests of justice.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedure and eligibility criteria for applications under this section.”

This new clause would allow a person still serving a sentence under a law that has changed to seek review or resentencing in line with the existing law.

New clause 23—Review of the impact of a change in the law on unspent convictions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report reviewing—

(a) the effect of changes in the criminal law, whether legislative or judicial, on those serving sentences for offences that would attract a different sentence following the subsequent changes to the criminal law; and

(b) the adequacy of existing mechanisms for addressing any perceived injustice arising from such changes.

(2) The Secretary of State must thereafter lay a further report under subsection (1) every three years.

(3) A report made under this section must include—

(a) recommendations for legislative or administrative steps to prevent any instances of injustice arising from changes in the law; and

(b) data on the number of persons serving sentences in the scenario set out in subsection (1)(a) and, of those, the number who remain imprisoned.”

This new clause would create a statutory duty for the Government to review, on a recurring basis, how changes to the law affect those already convicted or sentenced.

New clause 24—Sentencing Council—

“The Sentencing Council of England and Wales is abolished.”

New clause 25—Deportation of foreign criminals—

“(1) A foreign criminal who has been sentenced to—

(a) a custodial sentence of at least 6 months; or

(b) a community sentence of at least 6 months,

must be the subject of an immediate deportation order, subject to subsection (2) below.

(2) The Secretary of State may determine, in exceptional cases, that a deportation order under subsection (1) does not apply.

(3) In this section, ‘foreign criminal’ means a person who—

(a) is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen, and

(b) is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence.”

This new clause is intended to replace Clause 42. It would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six month community sentence.

New clause 26—Criminal cases review—

“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), insert—

‘Part IVB

CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW (PUBLIC PETITION)

36A Scope of this Part

(1) A case to which this Part applies may be referred to the Court of Appeal under section 2 below.

(2) Subject to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under section 36B shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in this Part shall be construed as references to that division.

(3) This Part applies to any case—

(a) of a description specified in an order under this section; or

(b) in which sentence is passed on a person—

(i) for an offence triable only on indictment; or

(ii) for an offence of a description specified in an order under this section.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that this section shall apply to any case of a description specified in the order or to any case in which sentence is passed on a person for an offence triable either way of a description specified in the order.

(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(6) In this Part, “sentence” has the same meaning as in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, except that it does not include an interim hospital order under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983, and “sentencing” shall be construed accordingly.

(7) In its application to Northern Ireland, this section shall have effect subject to the modifications set out in subsections (8) to (11).

(8) Subsection (2) shall not apply to Northern Ireland.

(9) In this section—

“offence triable only on indictment” means an offence punishable only on conviction on indictment;

“offence triable either way” means an offence punishable on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction; and

any reference in subsection (4) to the Secretary of State must be construed as a reference to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

(10) For subsection (5), in Northern Ireland an order under subsection (4) shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (and not a statutory instrument), and any such order shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).

(11) References in subsection (6) to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall be respectively construed as references to Part I of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 and Part III of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

36B Criminal cases review (public petition)

(1) If it appears to any adult British citizen aged 18 or over—

(a) that the sentencing of a person in a proceeding in the Crown Court (“the person sentenced”) has been unduly lenient or unduly harsh; and

(b) that the case is one to which section 36A applies,

that British citizen (“the petitioner”) may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“the Commission”) for it to review the sentencing of the person sentenced, in accordance with section 36C below, and if the Commission refers the case to the Court of Appeal, upon such a reference the Court of Appeal may—

(i) quash any sentence passed on the person sentenced; and

(ii) in place of it pass such sentence as they think appropriate for the case and as the lower court had power to pass when dealing with the person sentenced,

provided that the petitioner has filed the reference with the Commission in writing, signed by at least 500 signatures (“the co-petitioners”) including his own.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations stipulate the information and form that the petitioner must provide when filing the reference.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the condition specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection may be satisfied whether or not it appears that the judge—

(a) erred in law as to his powers of sentencing; or

(b) failed to comply with a mandatory sentence requirement under section 399(b) or (c) of the Sentencing Code.

(4) For the purposes of this Part, any two or more sentences are to be treated as passed in the same proceeding if they would be so treated for the purposes of section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

(5) Where a reference under this section relates to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code, the Court of Appeal shall not, in deciding what order under that section is appropriate for the case, make any allowance for the fact that the person to whom it relates is being sentenced for a second time.

(6) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of, or shall determine any application in proceedings incidental or preliminary to, a reference under this section of a sentence passed by himself.

(7) Where the Court of Appeal has concluded its review of a case referred to it under this section, and given its judgment thereon, the Court of Appeal, the petitioner or the person sentenced may refer a point of law involved in any sentence passed on the person sentenced to the Supreme Court for its opinion, and the Supreme Court shall consider the point and give its opinion on it accordingly, and either remit the case to the Court of Appeal to be dealt with or itself deal with the case.

(8) A reference under subsection (6) shall be made only with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court of Appeal that the point of law is of general public importance and it appears to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court (as the case may be) that the point is one which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.

(9) For the purpose of dealing with a case under this section, the Supreme Court may exercise any powers of the Court of Appeal.

(10) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—

(a) subsection (2)(b) shall read as if for the words after “failed to” there were substituted “impose a sentence required by—

(i) Article 70(2) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004,

(ii) paragraph 2(4) or (5) of Schedule 2 to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006,

(iii) Article 13 or 14 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, or

(iv) section 7(2) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015”.

(b) the references to sections 11 and 35(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 shall be read as references to sections 10(2) and 33(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, respectively; and

(c) the reference in subsection (3A) to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code shall be read as a reference to an order under Article 5(1) of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001.

36C The Commission

(1) The Commission under section 36B is the same body as that established under section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and the provisions of section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to the role of the Commission under this Part.

(2) Sections 9, 10, and 12A to 25 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to this Part.

(3) The Commission must review all cases referred to it within 8 weeks of receiving any such referral and must, within that time, make its decision.

(4) If the Commission decides that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal by reason of an unduly harsh sentence then, immediately upon receipt of the referral, the Court of Appeal must make an order that the person sentenced be released on temporary licence (“ROTL”) until further order of the court, and the Court of Appeal must also determine suitable bail conditions, if any and the person sentenced must remain ROTL until the Court of Appeal has determined the referral.”’

New clause 27—Foreign criminals: stalking—

‘(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert—

“32A Deportation following stalking offences

(1) This section applies where a foreign criminal—

(a) has been convicted of an offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; and

(b) is subject to a deportation order under this Act.

(2) Where this section applies, prior to deportation, a risk assessment must be prepared to assess the likelihood after deportation of the foreign criminal—

(a) committing an offence which, were it to be committed in England or Wales, would constitute a further offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; or

(b) contacting or seeking to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales.

(3) A risk assessment prepared under this section must be shared, subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018, with the relevant authorities in the country to which the foreign criminal will be deported.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’”

This new clause would require the preparation of a risk assessment for any foreign criminal being deported after a stalking conviction, and for the assessment to be shared with the authorities in the country to which the offender is returning.

New clause 28—Gambling treatment requirement—

“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.

(2) In section 201 (community order: community order requirements table), after the entry in the table relating to the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement, insert—

‘(3) In Schedule 9 (community orders and suspended sentence orders: requirements), after Part 12 insert—

“Part 12a

GAMBLING TREATMENT REQUIREMENT

26A(1) In this Code “gambling treatment requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement that during a period specified in the order the offender must seek gambling addiction treatment through the National Health Service.

(2) In this paragraph—

(a) “gambling treatment”, in relation to an offender, means—

(i) treatment provided through a specialist NHS gambling service or gambling clinic; or

(ii) another form of NHS treatment determined by a qualified clinician to have the best chance of reducing or eliminating the offender’s gambling addiction; and

(b) ”qualified clinician” means an NHS clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist with appropriate professional qualifications.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) apply to a relevant order which imposes a gambling treatment requirement.

(4) The order may specify separate periods comprising the period specified under sub-paragraph (1).

(5) For each treatment period, the order may specify the treatment provider but must not otherwise specify the nature of the treatment.

(6) In sub-paragraph (5), “treatment period” means—

(a) if the order specifies separate periods under sub-paragraph (4), any of those periods;

(b) otherwise, the period specified under sub-paragraph (1).”’”

This new clause would introduce a new gambling treatment requirement, requiring an offender to seek NHS gambling addiction treatment as part of a community order.

New clause 29—Gambling addiction: support for offenders—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on how the Government will ensure that—

(a) sentencing courts treat gambling disorder as a mental disorder for the purposes of section 232 of the Sentencing Code;

(b) sentencing courts have access to appropriate clinical advice on the impact of a gambling disorder on offending behaviour, where relevant; and

(c) offenders have access to treatment and peer support for gambling disorder, both in prison and in the community.

(2) Within twelve months of the publication of a report under subsection (1) above and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report on progress against the objectives set out in subsection (1).”

This new clause would require the Government to report to Parliament on how it will improve support for offenders with gambling addictions and ensure that gambling disorder is recognised as a mental health condition by sentencing courts.

New clause 30—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—

“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) Those arrangements must include arrangements relating to the establishment of a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).

(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.

(4) A court that imposed an IPP sentence has the power to re-sentence the prisoner in relation to the original offence.

(5) But the court may not impose a sentence that is a heavier penalty than the sentence that was imposed for the original offence.

(6) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (4)—

(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under the Sentencing Code (see section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020);

(b) the Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).

(7) In this section—

‘IPP sentence’ means a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act (including such a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of section 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);

‘original offence’ means the offence in relation to which the IPP sentence was imposed.

(8) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.

New clause 31—Use of funds raised through income reduction orders—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits and costs of directing the funds raised from income reduction orders into a fund that provides support for victims.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of using the monies raised through income reduction orders to fund support for victims.

New clause 32—Probation caseloads—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations to commence the provisions in this Act, establish maximum caseload limits for probation officers supervising individuals subject to—

(a) licence conditions;

(b) community orders; or

(c) any other form of court-imposed supervision by the probation service.

(2) The Secretary of State must, each year, lay before Parliament a report on compliance with the caseload limits set under this section.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set maximum caseloads for probation before implementation of the Act, and to report annually on compliance.

New clause 33—Access to rehabilitation and support services—

“(1) The probation service must ensure all individuals subject to licence conditions, community orders, or other court-imposed supervision have access to—

(a) NHS mental health and substance misuse services,

(b) education, training and employment support, and

(c) approved behaviour change or offender behaviour programmes.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on the availability and use of the services provided under subsection (1).”

This new clause would require the probation service to ensure people under its supervision can access mental health and substance misuse services; education, training and support; and approved behaviour change or offender management programmes, and to report annually on the availability and uptake of those services.

New clause 34—Digital systems for tracking offender progress—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the benefits and costs of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals who are subject to supervision by the probation service.

(2) The assessment must consider the following potential functions of a sentence management system—

(a) tracking offender progress,

(b) providing for the sharing of information between the courts, probation service, and other relevant agencies, subject to the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018,

(c) monitoring compliance with rehabilitation programmes, and

(d) any other functions that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals subject to supervision by the probation service.

New clause 35—Specialist teams for high-risk or complex offenders—

“(1) The probation service must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise—

(a) high-risk offenders,

(b) offenders with complex mental health needs,

(c) offenders with substance misuse needs, and

(d) young offenders who are transitioning to adult supervision.

(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits of specialist probation teams having lower average caseloads per probation officer.

(3) The assessment must consider the potential arrangements for specialist probation teams accessing support from other relevant agencies.

(4) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the probation service to assess the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise offenders who are high-risk; have complex mental health or substance misuse needs; and young offenders transitioning to adult supervision.

New clause 36—Domestic abuse aggravated offences—

“(1) A court must treat an offence committed in England and Wales as domestic abuse aggravated, if—

(a) the offender and the victim are personally connected to each other; and

(b) the offence involves behaviour which constitutes domestic abuse.

(2) In this section—

(a) ‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and

(b) ‘personally connected’ has the meaning given by section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”

This new clause would require a court to treat a domestic abuse offence as aggravated.

New clause 37—Rehabilitative programmes for offences relating to violence against women and girls—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for—

(a) assault;

(b) battery; or

(c) actual bodily harm

when the victim is a woman or girl.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for certain offences.

New clause 38—Screening for traumatic brain injuries—

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of screening all prisoners for traumatic brain injuries at the start of their custodial sentence.

(2) The assessment should consider—

(a) how screening for traumatic brain injuries could inform the management of a prisoner’s sentence,

(b) the health services and rehabilitation programmes available for prisoners with traumatic brain injuries, and

(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment made under this section before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of introducing standardised screening for traumatic brain injuries for prisoners starting a custodial sentence.

New clause 39—Suspension of driving licences during bail for driving related offences—

“(1) This section applies where an individual has been granted bail in respect of one of the following offences—

(a) dangerous or careless driving;

(b) drink driving; or

(c) drug driving.

(2) The court may suspend the driving licence of the individual, pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings.”

This new clause would allow the court to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged for certain driving offences, pending the outcome of the trial.

New clause 40—Access to rehabilitation programmes and education for individuals held on remand—

“(1) Where an individual is held in custodial remand pending sentencing, the probation service must provide access to the same rehabilitative programmes that are available to prisoners after sentencing.

(2) Where an individual is held in custodial demand pending trial, the probation service must provide access to the same—

(a) education;

(b) therapy; and

(c) any other support that the probation service deems appropriate,

that is available to prisoners after sentencing.”

This new clause would allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence.

New clause 41—No presumption of suspended sentence—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”

New clause 42—Tagging of offenders receiving suspended sentences—

“Where a court has imposed a suspended sentence, it must impose a condition that an offender must be subject to electronic monitoring for the duration of that sentence.”

New clause 43—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 2)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is an offence under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996.”

New clause 44—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 3)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, either involves possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon.”

New clause 45—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 4)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”

New clause 46—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 5)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has committed or been convicted of three other offences in the 12 months preceding the offence.”

New clause 47—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 6)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has committed 10 or more other previous offences at the time of the offence or at the time of conviction for the offence.”

New clause 48—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 7)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has previously received a suspended sentence order for the same offence.”

New clause 49—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 8)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has previously received a custodial sentence for the same offence.”

New clause 50—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 9)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, has a mandatory minimum sentence.”

New clause 51—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 10)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, involves a firearm or ammunition including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”

New clause 52—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 11)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is one of burglary.”

New clause 53—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 12)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, has a connection to terrorism, including but not limited to offences relating to terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Explosive Substances Act 1883.”

New clause 54—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 13)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is one that falls under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.”

New clause 55—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 14)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has breached previous suspended sentence orders three or more times, either by failing to comply with the requirements of the orders or by re-offending during the order’s operational period.”

New clause 56—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 15)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, was committed while the offender was subject to a supervision order.”

New clause 57—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 16)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, was committed while the offender was on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).”

New clause 58—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 17)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offence, or an associated offence, is an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”

New clause 59—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 18)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has a history of poor compliance with court orders.”

New clause 60—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 19)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender is being sentenced for three or more offences.”

New clause 61—No presumption of suspended sentence (No. 20)—

“The presumption of a suspended sentence will not apply if the offender has already been convicted of committing the same offence three or more times.”

New clause 62—Expiry—

“This Act expires at the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”

Schedules 1 to 4 stand part.

Government new schedule 1—Sentence with fixed licence period in Scotland or Northern Ireland: consequential provision—

Government amendment 21.

[Esther McVey]

I oppose the whole idea of forcing courts to give suspended sentences when they should be sending offenders to prison. We all know that it is hard to get sent to prison in the first place, and judges and magistrates do not send people to prison lightly. In fact, they do not send people to prison enough, as far as I can see, so it is extremely worrying that we are to force them to send even fewer people to prison. My amendments seek to address this issue.

We cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, so it will not be possible to transform this disastrous Bill into a good one—all we can seek to do today is make it less bad. Hon. Members should be under no illusion: the Bill takes a sledgehammer to our justice system, and will dismantle law and order in this country. To call the Bill a “sentencing” Bill makes a mockery of us all. It should be called the “avoid a sentence” Bill, because it is a slap in the face to victims and will embolden offenders, who will quite literally be laughing all the way to their next crime.

Let me put on record my support for amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), particularly in relation to the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the deportation of foreign criminals, but because of time constraints I will speak only to those amendments tabled in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I am not going to give way again, because I am taking too much time. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a difficult process to manage. That is why this Bill was presented on the same day that fixed-term recall 48 came into operation. FTR 48 is the recent provision mandating fixed-term recalls of 28 days in determinate cases of less than 48 months. The new 56-day recall model recommended in the Bill replicates FTR 48, with the exception that the default recall period is extended from 28 to 56 days. Prior to this new provision being laid, there has been no opportunity for the efficacy and impact of this model to be evaluated. New clause 21 would allow that evaluation to take place. I think I am trying to do the same as what he is saying, which is to ensure we look carefully and evaluate the effect. We are into new territory here, and there may be unintended consequences.

The sentencing review received numerous reports that offenders are recalled for breaches, such as their tag running out of power or a failure to keep in touch, and that breach and recall processes are overly punitive and often felt to be unfair. As the Bill stands, the legal test for recall remains unchanged. As more offenders will be released at an earlier date and the use of electronic tagging will increase, there is a greater risk that people may be recalled when there are minor problems with the tag or housing issues. Tightening the legal test for recalls would confine their use to instances where there is evidence of consistent non-compliance, or a specific and imminent risk of harm, as recommended by the review. Without amendment, there is a real risk that the prison capacity crisis will not be adequately addressed, and we could even see an increase in recalls, albeit for shorter periods. A tighter test would guard against unintended consequences from the overuse of 56-day recalls.

Amendment 34 to clause 24 introduces the right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations as to their necessity and proportionality. That could be an important safeguard, given the suite of new conditions in the Bill that enable a wide range of restrictions to be imposed in the community. Without safeguards, the use of these conditions could lead to increased recalls and increased pressure on the probation and prison systems. Giving offenders an entitlement to make representations about licensing conditions would assist in alerting the authorities to any unintended consequences, such as where conditions might impact on resettlement or other outcomes, including access to employment or healthcare.

I am coming towards the end, but not just yet. The last of my amendments is amendment 35 to clause 24, which concerns restriction zones. Amendment 35 would introduce a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones for offenders on licence. A restriction zone is, by its nature, highly restrictive and could impact on almost every aspect of an offender’s life, including their ability to work, receive medical care and see family. Any application to leave the zone places an administrative burden on the authorities. The amendment would introduce judicial oversight by the Parole Board of the extension of restriction zones. That oversight could act as an important safeguard before such restrictions are imposed, and may also provide an opportunity for victims to have a voice in setting out the potential impact on them before an independent body.

This is the first time that provision has been made to restrict offenders to a certain geographical area when released on licence without a requirement for judicial oversight or due process. The proposed restriction is akin to control orders, now replaced with terrorist prevention and investigation measures, but without the requirement for a gateway offence or judicial oversight.

Finally, I have put my name to amendment 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox). It would provide an important clarification of the powers of the court to impose a community sentence as an alternative to a suspended prison sentence, in circumstances where that may offer a more effective prospect of avoiding future offending or breach of licence conditions. It would likely be especially beneficial in keeping women out of prison.

To conclude, I repeat my support for the Bill and the Government’s approach to sentencing, which are the biggest changes in 30 years. I thank the organisations working with IPP prisoners, many of whom are relatives and friends of those incarcerated, including United Group for Reform of IPP and the IPP Committee in Action. I also thank the justice unions parliamentary group, the Prison Reform Trust, the Law Society and Justice, among others, for their briefing and assistance with proposing changes to the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider the amendments that we have tabled as ways to improve the Bill’s content and bring clarity where it is needed. I hope that he will respond to them in winding up and may even agree to adopt some of them. We survive on hope.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 24 and the other amendments that I have tabled on behalf of the Opposition. I regret that we have not had the opportunity to hear from important voices on these incredibly important issues through a full Public Bill Committee. Victims groups of all different kinds care deeply about the measures in this Bill. We not only do not get to hear from them as MPs, but the nature of Committee of the whole House means that we do not have the opportunity to put forward for inclusion a whole range of measures that are worthy of our consideration and a vote in support. Anyone reading the amendment paper will see the richness and range of ideas that just will not get the level of detailed consideration they should. It would have been beneficial, and we may well end up giving this incredibly important Bill less than 15 hours of consideration in this House.

I cannot help but feel that the measures related to early release are so unpalatable that the Government are doing their absolute best to rush this Bill through the House to avoid proper scrutiny. I will try, though, to at least give some time and thought to some of the amendments, even if ultimately we will not be able to vote on them. New clause 12 relates to changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. At present, the ULS scheme allows anyone to appeal most sentences to the Attorney General’s Office if they consider them to be unduly lenient. I and other Members of this House have made use of this scheme, as have others. It can and does lead to sentences being changed, but there are two major problems with the scheme as it operates.

First, too many victims are unaware of the scheme and do not get long enough to make use of it. At this point, I pay tribute to the amazing campaigners who have done so much to raise this issue. Katie Brett secured thousands of signatures to a petition to change the scheme in memory of her sister Sasha. I pay tribute to Ayse Hussein and other members of the Justice for Victims group. The issue has also been raised for many years by Tracey Hanson, who I had the pleasure of meeting recently, in memory of her son Josh Hanson, who was the victim of an appalling murder. I know that other campaigners are similarly inclined. All of them are clear about the fact that the current scheme does not work. Our amendment will require the Crown Prosecution Service to notify victims, and also extend the time available to appeal to up to a year for victims and their families if the victim is deceased.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention, which I think is quite sensible, and I support the contention. I hope the Minister will respond appropriately when he has the opportunity.

Does the Minister agree that HM Inspectorate of Probation should have the powers outlined in new clause 4? They are just the sort of safeguards we need in the Bill before more pressure is placed on the Probation Service. We are all aware that it is really overstretched, principally as a result of funding cuts implemented by the previous Government and some of the decisions taken before the present Government came into office.

Finally, I am pleased to register my support for new clause 3, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is my good friend. I echo the concerns that he expressed at length on Second Reading about the potential for exploitation by private companies, such as when unpaid work in London was privatised in 2013. Indeed, that was criticised by the International Labour Organisation as an abuse. Does the Minister agree with the probation union, Napo, that unpaid work orders should always be about payback to the community, that they should be run for public good, not for private profit, and that this safeguard should be placed in the Bill?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

As the newly appointed Justice spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I would first like to acknowledge the hard work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), and his determination to make tangible changes for those that have experienced domestic abuse. I thank the Government for their constructive collaboration with him by introducing into the Bill a domestic abuse identifier at the point of sentencing. The identifier will give victims greater confidence that their abusers are being appropriately dealt with in the justice system, but it would be reassuring if the Minister confirmed that this identifier will be used to ensure that those perpetrators are excluded from any future early release schemes.

This Bill presented a fantastic opportunity to address the endemic challenges that plague our justice system. Those challenges are the result of years of mismanagement by the Conservatives, whose decisions have underpinned the record backlog of cases in the Crown court, as well as prison overcrowding and astronomically high reoffending rates, with victims consistently failed at every stage. We Liberal Democrats had hoped that this Bill would begin to shift the dial towards a justice system that truly protects victims and rehabilitates perpetrators, and there are indeed many elements that we support and that show promise. However, we remain concerned that the scope and ambition of the Bill are lacking, having had many of our amendments rejected due to the lack of financing behind the Bill.

Many of the issues blighting our justice system stem from a lack of foresight and investment, particularly in probation and prisons, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) mentioned. It is therefore disappointing that the Bill does not include major efforts to rectify that. As a party, we are supportive of suspending short sentences of under 12 months and have long campaigned for this measure. Not only is it a necessary step to address prison overcrowding, but it would play a vital role in reducing reoffending. While 62% of those serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months go on to reoffend, only 24% reoffend if they are given a suspended sentence. Ending the cycle of reoffending is crucial to reducing crime levels and relieving pressure on the justice system. As the Government have stated, there will be exceptions, but they are yet to clarify what those exceptions will be. Will they include violent offenders, those convicted for sexual offences against children and those who possess indecent images? It would be very helpful if the Minister laid out all the exemptions.

We have tabled a number of amendments aimed at addressing our concerns or furthering aspects of the Bill. New clause 30 aims to address imprisonment for public protection. IPP sentences were a type of indeterminate sentence used in England and Wales from 2005 to 2012 for dangerous offenders who did not qualify for a life sentence, but still posed a public risk. These sentences featured a minimum term, but no maximum, with release contingent on the Parole Board deeming the offender no longer a threat. It was during the coalition Government that we abolished IPP sentences, but many remain in prison serving these sentences long after their tariff has expired. Our new clause would commence a resentencing exercise, which has cross-party support and should be implemented as a priority. The amendment was first recommended by the Justice Committee in 2022, and I note that the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), has tabled a similar measure—new clause 19.

Although we welcome the Government’s approach to community sentencing, reoffending rates are demonstrably higher among those who are unemployed. In 2023, the reoffending rate for those who were unemployed six weeks after release from prison was 36.5%, compared with 20% for those who were employed at the same point. Amendment 44 therefore calls on the Government to publish a report assessing whether the driving prohibition in the Bill could impede an individual’s ability to attend work, education or rehabilitation programmes. Can the Minister inform the House what assessment the Government have made of that? Ensuring access to those pathways is vital if we are to reduce reoffending effectively.

We are also concerned that the Bill does not go far enough to support victims of violence against women and girls. I know that this is one of the Government’s key priorities this parliamentary term, yet without collecting the data, it is an empty promise that it will be hard for the Government to show they have actually achieved. New clause 36 would continue the important campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne to ensure that domestic abuse is treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing, while new clause 37 would require an assessment of the introduction of mandatory rehabilitation programmes focused on violence against women and girls for those convicted of assault, battery or actual bodily harm against a woman or girl, even if domestic abuse is not included as an aggravating factor. These measures are designed to ensure that victims of domestic abuse and related offences are placed at the centre of the justice system’s work, ensuring that such crimes are met with appropriate sentences and that rehabilitation is specifically targeted at those who commit these serious offences.

In line with that approach, new clause 38 calls for screening for traumatic brain injuries among prisoners at the start of their custodial sentences. A Brainkind study last year showed that 80% of women in the criminal justice system in Wales may be suffering with a brain injury, while Government data shows that more than half of female prisoners are victims of domestic abuse. These figures identify that a significant proportion of the female prison population may have undiagnosed brain injuries resulting from domestic abuse, leaving many without the treatment they need and undermining their rehabilitation—something that is certainly reflected in their ability to engage with probation services after leaving prison. Comprehensive screening across the prison population would enable a deeper understanding of the links between trauma, offending and reoffending.

New clause 31 calls on the Secretary of State to examine the proceeds generated from the proposed income reduction orders and to consider whether they could be ringfenced to create a dedicated fund for supporting victims.

New clause 39 would allow the courts to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged with certain driving offences pending the outcome of the trial as part of their bail conditions. Many hon. Members across the House have harrowing cases in their constituencies of lives lost at the hands of a drunk driver, drug driver or someone causing death by dangerous or reckless driving, and the court backlogs mean so often that those defendants are free to continue driving after the offence has occurred, sometimes waiting for months; in some cases, with drug tests taking up to six months to be received, the driver is free to continue to drive under the influence, which is just plain wrong. I know that is felt deeply across the House.

New clause 40 would address the ridiculous doom loop we find ourselves in with prisoners on remand arriving at their sentencing hearing, being sentenced and then being sent home because the court backlogs mean they have served their sentence while being on remand and have not had access to any rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy or other support. The new clause would make rehabilitative programmes accessible for those on remand.

We are also still concerned about a number of unaddressed measures in the Bill, such as the recall provisions, which allow those recalled to be released after 56 days with no involvement from the Parole Board, essentially providing a “get out of jail free” card for reoffending. This will not give the public confidence in the system. I would also be interested in the Minister’s argument as to the purpose of provisions in the Bill to allow the Probation Service to publish names and pictures of those taking part in unpaid work.

The Bill does contain some good ideas to address some of the issues in our justice system, but it could and should have gone further, especially if it had adequate resourcing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne stated on Second Reading, the Bill was full of hope, but falls short of both the Liberal Democrat ambition and the ambition that the Government claim to have. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to our questions, and encourage Members across the House to support our amendments and new clauses, including new clause 30.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, sentencing decisions are for the judiciary. Every single offence in his amendment 24 can be given an extended determinate sentence. As I have said before—I will say it again—what victims of crime fear the most is the situation that this Government inherited, in which we were running out of prison places and the most serious offenders might not have faced prison at all. Bizarrely, the shadow Justice Minister said earlier in the debate, “If I had been Prime Minister or Chancellor, this wouldn’t have happened.” Well, you were not, I am afraid. A lot of you lot had a go at being Chancellor or Prime Minister, and none of you did a good job.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. “You lot” and “you” were addressed to me.

Sentencing Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of Robert Jenrick has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the new Justice Secretary will not want to be accused of misleading the House on such important matters. A moment ago, he referred to the measures before the House not affecting the sentences for people accused of “the gravest crimes”. The measures before the House will reduce sentences for rapists and child abusers. He either thinks that those are grave crimes and wants to correct the record, or he does not—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That is quite simply not a point of order but a point of debate, which the shadow Secretary of State could well come to in due course.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman has to read the Bill, because it does not reduce sentences. He really has to get to grips with the detail of the Bill—I hope these things can be discussed in Committee—because it does not reduce sentences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Does the Lord Chancellor agree with my concerns that neither the Bill nor the excellent report that preceded it make any mention of restorative justice—a process that truly puts the victim at the heart of the criminal justice process? Will he pledge in future legislation to address that omission?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before the Lord Chancellor responds, let me say that a huge number of his own Back Benchers would like to get in this afternoon. He might therefore like to think about getting to the end of his contribution.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for the steer. You know how it is, Madam Deputy Speaker; this is my first outing, and I was getting a little carried away with how good this Bill is. The intensive supervision courts will be able to look closely at restorative justice, which, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) rightly says, is a fundamental part of our criminal justice system.

There is a growing area of crime in relation to sexual offences. It is important that I mention the trial that has been running for three years in the south-west, piloting medication to manage problematic sexual arousal. These drugs restrain sexual urges in offenders who could pose a risk to the public, and are delivered alongside psychological interventions that target other drivers of offending, including asserting power and control. Although the evidence base is limited, it is positive. For that reason, we will roll out the approach nationwide, starting with two new regions—the north-west and the north-east—covering up to 20 prisons.

I have already discussed investing in probation, so mindful of your encouragement, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will end by saying that the Bill ensures that our prisons will never run out of space again. But it does more than that: it ensures that prison sentences rehabilitate, turning offenders away from crime; it ensures that victims are at the heart of justice, with safeguards in place; it expands effective sentencing outside of prison for those who can be managed in the community; it follows the evidence of what works; it is pragmatic and principled, protecting the public; and it draws a clear line under the Tory record of failure. After 14 years that left the average number of reoffences per offender at a record high, Labour is delivering punishment that works through a justice system that follows the evidence.

Victims and Courts Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Today, I will speak to one part of the Bill, which will require convicted offenders to attend their sentencing hearings and provide consequences where they refuse. It is known as Olivia’s law.

Olivia Pratt-Korbel was nine years old when she was murdered in her own home by a stranger with a gun. The murderer, Thomas Cashman, fired a bullet through the door of Olivia’s home, which passed through the wrist of my constituent, Cheryl Korbel—Olivia’s mother—before hitting Olivia in the chest and ending her life. Cheryl and her cousin Antonia are with us in the Under-Gallery today.

To lose a child to murder in your own home, while you try to protect them, is a burden that no parent should ever be asked to bear, but under our current justice system convicted criminals can opt out of attending their own sentencing. That is what Olivia’s murderer did. Cashman remained in his cell, refusing to face the court, to hear Cheryl’s words or to look her in the eye. It was the act of a coward. That injustice must end.

Nothing in this world can bring Olivia back. But instead of collapsing under this weight, Cheryl fought back. She and her family have campaigned so that no other family would suffer the same. Olivia’s law is her work. It is Olivia’s legacy, and it is Cheryl’s legacy.

Today I will read out Cheryl’s victim impact statement. These are the words that the murderer—the coward—Thomas Cashman refused to hear. I want the words of Cheryl Korbel committed to this House, so that they will be on record in this place forever. Let her words ring out in this Chamber, like they should have done in Cashman’s ears that day.

“Olivia was born six weeks early on 13 June 2013 at Whiston hospital weighing 4lbs 2oz. She was so tiny that she fitted in one hand. She had the most beautiful tanned skin. There wasn’t a blemish on her.

The tiny little bundle grew into a toddler, having the most perfect chubby rolls on her legs. Every time we went out, we were stopped by anyone and everyone, saying how beautiful she was, especially her big, beautiful brown eyes and thick curly hair.

Ryan and Chloe adored her as their baby sister. She slept in my room until she was one and then she moved into the big room with Chloe.

Liv wasn’t the best sleeper and would wake up of a night. Often by the time I got to her Chloe was already up and soothing her. Chloe was like a second mother to Liv.

The years passed by too quick and Liv started nursery. She was loved by everyone. She loved to play, in particular playing house and princesses. Cinderella was their favourite.

At home she would dress her dog Gizmo up in a blanket and put him in a pram, pushing him around the house. Gizmo still brings his blanket into me now.

More years passed and Liv skipped into her first day of reception. I was heartbroken but she was so happy and content. I couldn’t believe my baby was going into big school. She loved helping others and especially the role of being the teacher’s helper. She had a special bond with one of her teachers.

Liv was such a social butterfly. She was particularly good with younger children and was such a caring little girl. Liv had really long and beautiful brown hair. Something she was very proud and particular about.

A few weeks before she was cruelly taken away from us Liv had heard about the Little Princess Trust and what they do, from a friend in school. After talking to me, Liv decided she wanted to donate 12 inches of her hair, in her words, ‘for the sick kids to have beautiful wigs’.

We then went online together and applied for the sponsor form. Liv was due to have her hair cut on 27 August.

Liv was a girly girl and loved to play with makeup. She loved shoes with heels on. She didn’t want to wear trainers, ever. She had her own style and would wear what she wanted to wear even though it often didn’t match.

She would go to our Tony’s house with the girls and come down in their clothes and say she’d just found them. Those clothes would then make their way to our house and the girls would never see them again.

As Ryan and Chloe got older and began doing their own things, it became mostly me and her on our own. She was nicknamed my shadow. We were just always together, me, Liv and Pearl her purple bear.

This was once Chloe’s bear, but Liv took a liking to it and decided it was now hers. Pearl was her comfort blanket.

Each evening was different with Liv. One night we could be watching Matilda while she was upside down on the couch. The next night, she would leave me watching H2O while she sneaked upstairs to Ryan’s room whilst he was out so she could lie on his bed watching YouTube on her iPad.

Liv never stopped talking. Literally never. Even if she wasn’t directly talking to anyone, she would be chatting away. One thing I miss most is hearing her say ‘mum’.

I just miss hearing her voice. It’s just so quiet. I would do and give anything in the world to have her chatting to me. It’s so very lonely without her. Everything is just so quiet. I just can’t cope with the silence.

Setting my alarm at half seven in the morning is something I still do because it’s ingrained in me. The day goes by in a blur and then gets to half two and I think about the school pickup, something I will never get to do again as a mum.

She was and will always be my baby. But I miss the routine we had. My mind keeps telling me that I’ve forgotten to pick her up from school.

Now tea time was a big thing for me. Because it was so centred around her and what she wanted for tea.

Everything I do and everywhere I go is a constant reminder that she is not there with me.

This happened in our home where we felt safe and should have been safe. We had no choice but to leave the home that was Liv’s first and only home. When the police left and we weren’t allowed back there, it was heartbreaking.

I walked in and it was if time had stood still. The cups of tea still sitting on the coffee table, next to her Little Princess Trust sponsor form. Liv’s new bike still propped up on its stand. One of her dolls laying on the living room floor and her brand new sparkly shoes in a box.

Right at that moment I was home. We were back to how our lives were before that night. And I soaked up the surroundings until reality dawned and brought me back to my living nightmare. Packing up our home was horrendous. Having to pack up our lives, having to strip Liv’s bed, pack her clothes, toys, jewellery, her memories into a box.

No mother should ever have to do that.

We left our friends, our neighbours. My neighbour Chris was amazing and often when I needed to go to work would sit with Liv until Chloe got home from college.

It’s so hard to go back to the area where I grew up and where I raised all three of my children, the area where some of my closest friends live. The smallest of things remind me of Liv, her friends playing in the streets. When I see them it’s hard to accept she is no longer here.

Moving into the new house was difficult for all of us. Not being able to make her bed, put her clothes away. The toothbrush in the bathroom and not having her favourite food in the fridge.

And that night when I realised Liv had been shot and needed me. I was not able to do CPR properly on her because of my injury. I did not have full use of my hand and I felt helpless. It was only then my neighbour came in and tried all he could to save my baby.

My worst nightmare was being separated from Liv and not being with her when she needed me the most. I was the first person to hold my baby girl and as her mum I should have been the last.

I cannot get my head around how Cashman continued to shoot after hearing the terrifying screams. The utter devastation he has caused, he doesn’t care. How could he? His actions have left the biggest hole in our lives that can never be filled.

That man set out to do a job and he didn’t care about anyone else. Or who got in the way. He certainly couldn’t own it either. Ryan, Chloe and I are just existing day to day and have been since it happened.

We have been waiting for the trial and focusing on it and not addressing how utterly broken we are as a family. I cannot even think about rebuilding our lives without her.

Because of this we have missed out on so much, my nan who was 92 adored Liv and Liv her. Recently my nan’s health deteriorated, and she was admitted into hospital. A couple of weeks ago we were able to bring her home on end of life care.

Due to being at court every day we have not been able to spend enough quality time with her; my main focus has been getting justice for Liv. I believe she held on long enough to hear that that coward had been found guilty. Sadly my nan passed away last night.

My nine-year-old Liv was the light of our lives, our beautiful, sassy, chatty girl who never ran out of energy. She was a character, she was my baby, she had amazing qualities and knew what she wanted in life.

She will never get to make her holy communion, wear that prom dress or have a sweet 16th birthday, walk down the aisle with the man of her dreams or become a mother of her own children. All that promise for her future so cruelly taken away.

Now I have to drive to the cemetery to be close to my baby daughter. I sit with her and talk to her telling her I miss her smile, her kisses, her cuddles, her voice.

I tell her she will live on in my heart, she will always be with us, my little shadow.

We love you endless amounts Liv.”

Let Cheryl’s words be heard. Let them be honoured. Let Olivia’s law pass, and make sure that no victim’s voice is ever shut out of justice again. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Lady for sharing that with us. It was important that the House heard it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor for bringing forward this much-needed legislation, which will change our justice system for the better by strengthening support for victims and holding those who violate our laws to account.

In my constituency of Heywood and Middleton North, the scars of serious crime and antisocial behaviour and an inundated court system hold back our communities. My constituents and people across the country are looking for answers to those challenges, rather than the posturing that we see all too frequently in some quarters. This Bill goes a long way to providing those answers, and I know that the changes will be truly welcomed in my constituency.

Last week, I held a town hall event focused on crime and antisocial behaviour in Spotland, an area that I am proud to represent and to relay concerns from today. I place on record my gratitude to all those who attended, and who gave their stories, as well as those from Rochdale borough council, Greater Manchester police and Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, who also attended and were questioned by local residents. We covered a vast array of issues in a constructive and thoughtful manner, and I believe we got to the crux of what keeps people in Spotland and across my constituency awake at night: ultimately, it is the safety and security of their families and loved ones.

Across our borough, stalking offences, dangerous driving, off-road bikes and drug crime have been growing in prominence. In Greater Manchester, our court backlogs are some of the largest in the country. Most people I spoke to at the event were weary after years of cuts that reduced the police presence, which is essential, and consistent under-investment in our courts. They have seen a system that was built to protect them pushed to the brink and unable to respond effectively to the changing nature of crime in our communities.

Despite the challenging nature of what we discussed, I did not come away disheartened. On the contrary, I came away hopeful and determined to take my constituents’ concerns forward. Communities are rarely unresponsive to challenges, or idle in the face of them. In fact, they want to be part of the solution. People in my constituency want to work alongside authorities and local leaders to make our streets safer and to make sure that victims are supported and perpetrators face the full force of the law. They want common-sense and considered interventions from Government, like the ones before us today.

I will touch on one of the Bill’s provisions that will make a real difference to the communities I represent. First, the shadow of on-street grooming still hangs over families and survivors in my constituency. That is alongside wicked present-day crimes perpetrated against children across the country, the cruelty and cowardice of which remain with victims for life. According to the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, 500,000 children will experience some form of child sexual abuse every year in England and Wales. A third of childhood sexual abuse offences are committed in the family environment. We must make sure that children who are exploited or abused no longer remain under the responsibility of a family member capable of committing such vile acts. That is why I commend the provisions in the Bill to restrict parental responsibility for offenders sentenced for abusing young children.

Families must feel that they have a place to turn to when this unimaginable violation befalls a loved one, and must feel supported in law. I wholeheartedly support the steps to minimise bureaucracy and limit procedural burdens in a way that mitigates the further distress put on families, so that they can begin to rebuild what the perpetrator has shattered. I also support other measures in the Bill, including the provision that mandates perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearing or face further penalties.

As we know, crime does not exist only at a single point in time; its implications live on for victims, sometimes forever. Neither is it faceless. Behind each criminal act is a perpetrator who should face the consequences of their decisions. They should be made to look at the damage they have done to a person’s life, and to hear the verdict on their crimes. The Bill gives victims agency—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady must recognise that there is a time limit so that Members can get in.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Madam Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable.

Clause 1

Sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out

“different personal characteristics of an offender”

and insert

“an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort.”

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 1, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) After subsection (7) insert—

‘(7A) In the case of guidelines within subsection (4) about pre-sentence reports, the Council must, after making any amendments of the guidelines which it considers appropriate, obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before issuing sentencing guidelines as definitive guidelines.

(7B) In any case to which subsection (7A) applies, the Secretary of State may—

(a) consent to the issuing of guideline as definitive guidelines,

(b) refuse consent for the issuing of guidelines as definitive guidelines, or

(c) direct the Council to issue the guidelines in an amended form as definitive guidelines.

(7C) Where the Secretary of State has consented to the issuing of guidelines under subsection (7B)(a) or has directed the Council to issue guidelines in an amended form under subsection (7B)(c), the Council must issue the guidelines as definitive guidelines in the appropriate form”.”

This amendment stops sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports coming into force unless approved by the Lord Chancellor.

Amendment 2, page 1, leave out line 10 and insert—

““a particular demographic cohort’ may include those related to—”.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 13, at end insert—

“(d) status as part of a group that may have experienced trauma from experiences of racism or discrimination—

(i) inter-generationally and relayed to the defendant, or

(ii) as a result of important historical events which may have had a greater impact on those from specific groups and cultures.”

This amendment would ensure that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports cannot include a defendant’s status as part of a group, particularly not if this involves considering events that may not have impacted the defendant personally.

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Independent review—

“(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for an independent review to be carried out of—

(a) the effects of the changes made to section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 by section 1, and

(b) sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports.

(2) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with the Sentencing Council, appoint a person with professional experience relating to pre-sentence reports to conduct the review.

(3) The review must be completed within two years of the passing of this Act.

(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review, the person must—

(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and

(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report sent under subsection (4)(b) within one month of receiving the report.”

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

It is worthwhile at the outset of all debates on this Bill to restate that it is about pre-sentence reports that give information to sentencers that may be used in sentencing decisions, not about the passing of sentences themselves. Specifically, the Bill is about the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council to sentencers about the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report should normally be asked for, and about the sort of information about an offender which such a report may provide and which may be appropriate to consider and take into account before deciding on an appropriate sentence in that offender’s case.

There has been broad agreement—I see the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), in her place, so I will not say unanimity—that an offender’s ethnicity, race, culture or faith are on their own not that sort of information and that the Sentencing Council was wrong to suggest that pre-sentence reports should be awarded on that basis. I would argue that is because, even if there may be points to make about the treatment or experience of members of the ethnic, faith or cultural group to which the offender in question happens to belong, what is relevant to the sentencing of that offender can only be the treatment or experience to which the particular offender has themselves been subject, not whether they have arisen in the cases of other members of the same group who are not before the court. That is effectively the impact of amendment 4 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). That is why the Government are right to seek to exclude even from the process of asking for a pre-sentence report—let alone from passing sentence itself—the making of decisions based only on membership of such a group. That is after all what the Government have said this Bill is for.

These groups are described in the explanatory notes to the Bill as “particular demographic cohorts”. Paragraph 8 says,

“The Bill is intended to ensure that Sentencing Guidelines are drafted in such a way as to prevent differential treatment and maintain equality before the law. It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort, rather than the particular circumstances of that individual.”

Despite that explanation in the explanatory notes, the Bill goes further than that by prohibiting the Sentencing Council from including in a sentencing guideline any

“provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender.”

That is what clause 1(2) says in inserting language into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I think that language is significantly wider in impact than reference to membership of particular demographic cohorts—undesirably so, in my view. That is why I have tabled amendment 1, which would adopt the language used in the explanatory notes.

Let me explain why I think that would be preferable. My starting point is that I do not believe all personal characteristics are inappropriate to consider in a sentencing decision. There is, of course, much more to be considered in a sentencing decision than simply information about the offender, particularly the seriousness of the offence and its consequences, but relevant information about the offender is needed as part of the process. It surely cannot be right, then, to prohibit the Sentencing Council from encouraging sentencers to find out more about some of the personal characteristics that are relevant in reaching a more informed and therefore better sentencing decision—for example, a physical or learning difficulty, or a brain injury from which an offender will not recover.

The relevance of that information is not just in forming a fuller picture of the offender to be sentenced, but in assisting a sentencer to know whether that offender is capable of carrying out aspects of a community order, including work in the community, which the sentencer may want to consider as a potential sentencing option. It is worth underlining of course that the ordering of a pre-sentence report—whatever it says when it is produced—does not bind the hands of a sentencer to do as it recommends, but in reality, without one a sentencer’s options are often more limited. That is why guidance on when to ask for a pre-sentence report matters.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will make more progress. I think I have been more than generous.

That brings me to the Bill before us today. While the updated Sentencing Council guidelines are currently paused, if we do not act they will come into force— [Interruption.] Well, there was a lot to say, gentlemen, about the previous Government’s track record and it needed to be said. And I do not think the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) should mind me taking interventions from people on his own side. That is a novel approach for the shadow Front Bench.

Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill. It is tightly focused, containing just two clauses. Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which brought the Sentencing Council into existence. It dictates that the guidelines the council produces may not include references to personal characteristics, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background. Clause 2 relates to how the Bill will be enacted: that it will apply only to England and Wales, and that its measures will come into force on the day after it passes.

It is also important to be clear about what the Bill does not do. It does not stop the Sentencing Council from issuing broader guidance concerning requests for pre-sentence reports in those cases where it is helpful for the court to understand more about an offender’s history and personal circumstances. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases, for example those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. And, as detailed in the Bill’s explanatory notes, it does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, in cases such as: Thompson, where the Court of Appeal recently emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth; Meanley, in which the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants; or Kurmekaj, where the defendant had a traumatic upbringing, vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand, putting beyond doubt a principle which finds its ancient origins in Magna Carta and has developed over the centuries to serve the interests of justice not just here but in jurisdictions around the world: that each of us, no matter who we are, where we come from or what we believe, stand equal before the law of the land.

Wider questions remain about the role and the powers of the Sentencing Council, as I have noted. The council does important work, bringing consistency to judicial decision making, but it is clear in this instance that it went beyond its original remit. It sought to set policy, which stood out of step with the Government of the day. Therefore, it raises the question: who should set sentencing policy? Today’s legislation only addresses this question in the narrowest terms, considering the guidance on pre-sentence reports. It does not give us a definitive resolution as to whether it is Government Ministers or members of the Sentencing Council who should decide policy in the future. As I noted, that leaves us with a democratic deficit.

As I told the House on 1 April, the question of the role and powers of the Sentencing Council must therefore be considered further. That work is already under way in my Department. Should a further change be required, the Government will include it in upcoming legislation. The Sentencing Council plays an important role in our justice system, and any changes to it must be made carefully and with the consideration it deserves. I am sure they will be discussed more in this House in the months ahead, and I welcome the opportunity to debate them.

The Bill we are debating today is small, but the issues it contains could not be of greater significance. I know the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree that the Sentencing Council’s intentions on this issue were noble, but in trying to reach for equality of outcome, they sacrificed too much, undermining the sacred principle of equality before the law. It is right that we, as policymakers, stop the updated guidelines from coming into force. We must stand up for the idea that no matter our race or religion, no person should receive preferential treatment as they stand in the dock before a judge, so I beg to move that the Bill now be read a second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Lord Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I have to applaud the hon. Gentleman for reading out his Whips’ questions there. I have said it before and I will say it again, however: I do wish that he and those on the Labour Front Bench would stop perpetuating something that is obviously untrue. They know it is untrue. It has been said numerous times. The Sentencing Council itself—[Interruption.] Let me finish my point, because it is important.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Lord Chancellor has just suggested that those on the Government Front Bench are perpetuating an untruth. He might like to think about whether he wishes to withdraw that comment.

[Robert Jenrick]

It is, I hope, inadvertent, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Sentencing Council wrote to the Lord Chancellor correcting her on this very point, and made clear that the guidance that was put before the previous Conservative Government was materially different from the one—

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I will make progress.

The guidance does not just create the appearance of two-tier justice; it is two-tier justice. The Secretary of State cannot wash her hands of that. The bail guidance comes from her own Ministry. The pre-sentence guidance is issued by officials she oversees. The bench book is sanctioned by the Judicial College, under the watch of the Lady Chief Justice. If the Justice Secretary truly believes in equality before the law, and if her words are more than empty slogans, why is any of this happening on her watch? The truth is simple. This Bill is not the solution. It is a fig leaf. It is damage control. It is political theatre to distract from the deeper rot that the Government have permitted to fester. Until this type of guidance is ripped out, root and branch, from sentencing, bail, judicial training and appointments, the principle of equality before the law remains under direct assault.

We will not vote against the Bill, because we will never support two-tier justice, but we will not let the Justice Secretary rewrite history, either. She did not stop these rules or fight against them. She did not even know about them until we pointed them out to her. She allowed them to happen, and then panicked when the backlash came. Now she is using this House’s time to clean up her mess. She wears the robes and she dons the wig, but she is not in control of the justice system. Despite the big talk today, there is still two-tier justice on her watch. If she continues to do so little about it, we can only conclude that, at heart, she truly supports it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Mother of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

Well, either our judiciary is world-class and highly regarded, or it is so soft-minded that the very existence of a pre-sentencing report will make it rule in a way in which it would not otherwise have ruled.

Decisions by judges and magistrates on individual cases are not the same as policy. The Sentencing Council itself is very clear that it does not seek to dictate policy; it is simply trying to ensure that judges and magistrates have the maximum amount of information. Leading King’s Counsel Keir Monteith says that there has been a deliberate misreading of the rules in order to generate a row, and I believe that is correct.

Then we come to the talk, which I have heard on both sides of the House, about two-tier criminal justice. That can only mean that black defendants are treated more favourably than white defendants. Yet the facts tell us to the contrary. Ministers will be aware of the Lammy review, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—now the Foreign Secretary. It was a review of race in the criminal justice system, in which he found that

“Despite making up just 14% of the population,”

black and ethnic minority men and women

“make up 25% of prisoners, while over 40% of young people in custody are from BAME backgrounds.”

He added:

“If our prison population reflected the make-up of England and Wales, we would have over 9,000 fewer people in prison—the equivalent of 12 average-sized prisons.”

My right hon. Friend did not find a criminal justice system where black and brown people are treated more favourably than white people, and he did not find equality before the law. There is no reason to believe that things have changed since he drew up his review.

We need to appreciate that not only do we have a two-tier system, but it is a two-tier system in completely the opposite way to what the Lord Chancellor suggests, and it has been like that for decades. The population wants to see our two-tier criminal justice system taken seriously.

Members may remember the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence in the early 1990s. It took a Labour Government and a Labour Home Secretary to commission a judge-led inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence case. In 1999 the Macpherson inquiry reported. It spoke in an unequivocal way about institutional racism in the police service, and it spoke in a way that I had never heard it spoken about in this House or at the most senior levels in the state. Nobody since then has challenged the notion that there is institutional racism in the police.

Do we have to have our own Macpherson inquiry into the workings of the judicial system before people will accept that institutional racism is an issue in the courts as well? It is not enough to say, “Well, you know, the facts point in that direction but we are not quite sure why the figures are like that.” We know why the figures are like that, and we have known that for decades.

If we want to win the respect of the community as a whole, we must be seen to be working towards a fair criminal justice system, not just trying to score points off the opposition; and we must look at the long term, rather than the short term. We know that, in England and Wales, black people are much more likely to be arrested than white people. Specifically, black individuals are twice as likely to be arrested as white individuals. That disparity extends to imprisonment, with black individuals being more likely to be sentenced to prison and serving longer sentences than their white counterparts. Everybody knows that people are not treated the same, and it is misleading of Members on both sides of the House to imply that that is so.

Peter Herbert, chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, said:

“We have experienced racist two-tier policing for over 500 years. If we achieve equal treatment that is not two-tier as it is long overdue. We have never asked for special treatment only equal treatment.”

The Lord Chancellor should pay attention to the wish of so many members of the community, in her constituency in Birmingham and my constituency in east London, and the wishes of so many millions of people in the community to see a fair criminal justice system that treats people fairly, not unfairly as has happened in the past. Members will know that it took the Macpherson inquiry to get a measure of understanding about criminal justice in policing.

In closing, I will say this. It is interesting to hear the banter about this issue between those on the two Front Benches, but this is not an issue for banter. This is people’s lives; this is people’s liberty. I do not think that the debate is enhanced by some of the Trump-like narrative that we are getting from the Opposition. We do not need Donald Trump-type politics in Britain today. We need seriousness about the unfair discrimination in the criminal justice system, and a willingness not just to talk about it, but to do something about it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Josh Babarinde.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Liberal Democrats believe in equality before the law, Liberal Democrats believe in the rule of law, and Liberal Democrats believe that no one is above the law, so it has been heartening to hear those words echoed across the Chamber today.

But actions speak louder than words, which is why I regret to say that few have acted more to erode those legal and democratic values than the two-tier Tory party that occupies the Benches next to me—two-tier Tories who unlawfully partied in No. 10, while the rest of us missed funerals for lost relatives; two-tier Tories who unlawfully suspended Parliament to get their way, while lecturing us about the rule of law; two-tier Tories who unlawfully approved developments for their donor mates, while purporting to talk tough on crime; and two-tier Tories whose unlawfulness, chaos and double standards landed them with the biggest election defeat in their history.

The Conservatives still have not learned, because that hypocrisy continues today in the context of the sentencing guidelines in question. They nodded through earlier editions of the guidelines when they were in government, yet they make a scene about them today now that it has become politically convenient for them to do so. According to the Sentencing Council, just one MP objected to the cohorting in the previous guidelines put out to consultation in 2023-24. I will give way to the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), if he can confirm that it was he who made that objection. No—radio silence. [Interruption.]

Our country deserves better than the circumstances that have given rise to the Bill. Those circumstances are ultimately that the previous Government underfunded our probation and courts system so severely that pre-sentence reports have since been rationed and are not used universally, or indeed anywhere near it. In fact, the use of pre-sentence reports has declined by 44% over the last decade almost, according to Lord Timpson. That is despite the sentencing code having a presumption in favour of their use, regardless of any personal characteristic or circumstance.

The Liberal Democrats believe that that near-universal presumption is critical, because when the state is considering depriving someone of their liberty, judges and magistrates should be equipped with all the information possible to pass the sentence that is most likely to reduce reoffending and protect victims and survivors. Offenders need it and victims deserve it.

The Liberal Democrats believe that we should really be having a debate about how we can resource a criminal justice system that can fulfil pre-sentence reports for all offenders who need them, rather than a debate that feels grounded in rationing their use. We will therefore abstain on Second Reading, not because of indifference, but because of principled concerns that I will present constructively, to reciprocate the constructiveness with which the Secretary of State and her officials have engaged with me on this matter in recent weeks.

One concern is that this Bill simply is not necessary to achieve its stated aim. The Sentencing Council has, in response to the strength of feeling in Parliament, paused the implementation of its guidelines. It has not said how long that pause will last. My understanding is that the Department has not asked the council how long it would be willing to pause the guidelines. It seems to me that, in response to the most recent act of the Lord Chancellor, there is new-found space for an agreement to be reached, through dialogue with the Sentencing Council and the Lady Chief Justice, without a single minute of debate on primary legislation. Such legislation could then be devoted instead to patching up other injustices in our system.

Another concern is that this proposal is being rushed through without comprehensive consultation or co-ordination with wider work that is already under way. David Gauke is currently conducting an independent review of sentencing, which is due to report this spring. That review ought to have provided a clear opportunity to examine these issues in depth and to ensure that any reforms are evidence-based, balanced and considered in the broader context of sentencing policy. If the Government are convinced that primary legislation is required, why not wait for the Gauke review to report, take advantage of that independent insight, and then introduce coherent proposals in legislation later in this Session?

An additional concern is that although the Bill ostensibly gestures towards fairness, it fails to confront some of the most pressing injustices in our criminal justice system—to which the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), referred—including those identified by the Lammy review.

We know that there is disproportionality at most stages of the criminal justice process affecting various groups, from stop and search to charging decisions, early guilty pleas and sentencing outcomes. Ethnic minority individuals, women and those with mental health issues continue to be over-represented and underserved, yet this legislation makes no attempt to address that. While I welcome the review of data that the Justice Secretary described, it is unwelcome that the outcome of that does not feature in these proposals.

Finally, I am deeply troubled with the political context in which this Bill is being introduced. It may appear technical on the surface, but the legislation risks falling into a trap in which criminal justice is used by some in this House and beyond to stoke division, appeal to populist headlines and wage a cynical culture war. We must not allow our courts and sentencing practices to become pawns in that political game, nor part of a second stab at a Tory leadership campaign.

It is critical that in this debate and in any reform we make to sentencing policy, we lead with an evidence-based process and with a determination to tackle the injustices embedded in our criminal justice system, whether it is those disproportionately affecting women, ethnic minorities or white working-class boys—the list continues. We urge the Government to listen, reflect and return with proposals that work with the Sentencing Council, with the judiciary and with the findings of David Gauke’s independent sentencing review. Only then can we abolish the unjust two-tier system created under the two-tier Tories.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

After the Chair of the Justice Committee, I propose to introduce a four-minute time limit. I am conscious that many Members will be disappointed this evening.

Whiplash Injury Compensation

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 March, be approved.

This draft instrument amends the fixed tariff for whiplash compensation set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 by applying an inflationary uplift to the tariff values. In doing so, the amendment gives effect to recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor on 21 November 2024 following the completion of her statutory review of the 2021 regulations. By adjusting the whiplash tariff values to account for inflation, the Government will ensure that claimants can continue to receive proportionate compensation until the next review in 2027.

The whiplash reform programme changed the way claimants are awarded damages for low-value whiplash injuries following road traffic accidents. The aim of the reforms was to ensure an efficient, proportionate and reliable system for both claimants and defendants involved in road traffic accident-related whiplash claims. At their core, the measures aim to reduce the number and cost of whiplash injuries and deliver savings to consumers via reduced motor insurance premiums. Elements of the reform programme were delivered by the Civil Liability Act 2018, which introduced several important changes to the civil claims process. Alongside measures that introduced a legal definition of what constitutes a whiplash injury and banned the settling of such claims without medical evidence, the 2018 Act empowers the Lord Chancellor to set a fixed tariff of damages for road traffic accident-related whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.

The 2018 Act measures were supported by additional secondary legislative changes to increase the small claims track for road traffic-related personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000, and the introduction of a new pre-action protocol for personal injury claims below the small claims limit in road traffic accidents. At the same time, the insurance industry-owned and developed Official Injury Claim portal was launched to assist claimants affected by the reforms.

The first whiplash tariff was set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, which came into force on 31 May 2021. The 2018 Act requires the Lord Chancellor to review the 2021 regulations, and thereby the whiplash tariff, within three years of its implementation and every three years thereafter. In fulfilment of that statutory obligation, the first review of the whiplash tariff was completed on 22 May 2024 and the Lord Chancellor published her report of the statutory review on 21 November 2024. Upon reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor concluded that the structure and component parts of the whiplash tariff were effective. However, she recommended that the tariff amounts be uprated to account for consumer prices index inflation between 2021 and 2024, and to incorporate a three-year buffer to account for expected inflation until 2027. She did not consider that any other changes to the 2021 regulations were necessary.

In reaching her conclusions and recommendations, the Lord Chancellor took into consideration relevant industry and courts data, as well as information from a Ministry of Justice call for evidence, which ran from 6 February to 2 April 2024. In accordance with the review, this statutory instrument increases the whiplash tariff damages values and, subject to approval by both Houses, the new tariff will apply to all road traffic accident-related personal injury claims in England and Wales from 31 May 2025.

I believe that the House will find it helpful if I provide some additional explanation of the increase that will be applied to the whiplash tariff. By way of background, I should say that the whiplash tariff operates via a rising scale of fixed compensation payments determined by injury duration, up to a maximum of two years.

The payments in the original whiplash tariff set in 2021 range from £240 for whiplash injuries lasting three months or less to £4,215 for whiplash injuries lasting between 18 and 24 months. There is a separate, slightly higher, tariff for cases where any minor psychological injury, such as low-level travel anxiety, is incurred at the same time as the whiplash injury. Claims for whiplash injuries that last longer than two years fall outside the fixed tariff.

When the tariff was first implemented in 2021, the amounts were set to include a three-year buffer. The buffer was designed to account for expected inflation, according to the available forecasts at that time, and to ensure that claimants were not under-compensated in the years between the tariff’s implementation and the first statutory review. In reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor recognised the impact of inflation on the whiplash tariff amounts, noting that inflation over the first three-year period ran at a higher than expected rate, and, as most respondents to the 2024 call for evidence had noted, the real value of the tariff had fallen. In the light of this, she concluded that the tariff should be uprated by actual inflation between 2021 and 2024, and should again include a buffer to account for the expected inflation until the next review in 2027. The whiplash tariff will therefore be increased by around 15% for claims arising from road traffic accidents occurring on or after 31 May 2025.

As I have mentioned, this increase has been calculated using the consumer prices index inflationary measure. After careful consideration of the available data and evidence, the Lord Chancellor determined that CPI remains the most appropriate measure for uprating the tariff amounts by inflation. In contrast, she considered that the alternative retail prices index measure, if applied, would likely overstate inflation. It is worth noting that the use of CPI is in line with common practice across Government, as recommended by the Office for National Statistics.

In accounting for inflation, the Lord Chancellor also decided that the whiplash tariff should continue to be future-proofed by applying a CPI rounding over three years from 2024 to 2027. This approach is consistent with the method used to protect claimants from additional inflationary impacts when the first whiplash tariff was set in 2021. While this three-year buffer could lead to some over-compensation in the short term, not implementing it would allow the real value of claimants’ damages to decrease and risk significant under-compensation in the long term. Therefore, this buffer protects access to justice and minimises the risk of claimants being under-compensated in the years leading up to 2027.

I would, though, like to acknowledge that some respondents to the call for evidence expressed concern that the buffer would artificially increase the amount of compensation available and potentially undermine cost savings. However, the difference in the tariff levels using the buffer is not substantial enough to significantly impact on savings. The tariff amounts are only being adjusted to account for inflation and, as such, it is our view that this does not represent a real-terms increase in claim values.

Conversely, I am aware that other stakeholders suggested that the whiplash tariff should either be subject to an annual review or be index-linked to inflation to ensure annual increases. As the Lord Chancellor made clear in her report, these arguments are not compelling. A three-year review period, as anticipated by the 2018 Act, strikes the right balance between adequately compensating claimants and maintaining a stable system that is as simple to understand and administer as possible.

It is also worth noting that the recent high inflationary cycle was driven by a unique set of circumstances and is not a regularly occurring event. Therefore, while it is appropriate that the whiplash tariff is regularly reviewed against inflation, three years is the appropriate length of time to hold such reviews. Other than uprating the whiplash tariff to account for actual and expected inflation, as I have explained, no other amendments to the 2021 regulations are made by this instrument.

In accordance with her statutory obligation, the Lord Chancellor has consulted the Lady Chief Justice before making this instrument. The Master of the Rolls, acting on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice, expressed his endorsement of the proposal to uprate the whiplash tariff. He also noted that the judiciary would not welcome any further derogation from the principle that damages are assessed and awarded by the courts. As we have seen, in accordance with the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by the 2018 Act, the instrument only adjusts the level of damages for whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.

The amendments that this instrument will make to the 2021 regulations represent a balanced, proportionate and practical approach to uprating the whiplash tariff ahead of the next review.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

As the Minister explained, the Government have conducted their statutory review of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 and determined that, while the existing tariff structure remains appropriate, an inflationary uplift is required. The proposed amendments will increase compensation for whiplash injuries occurring on or after 31 May 2025 by 14% to 15% across all tariff bands. That adjustment accounts for inflation since 2021 and provides an additional buffer for expected inflation until the next statutory review in 2027.

The framework of the tariff remains unchanged, including the two-tier structure for “whiplash only” and “whiplash with minor psychological injury”, the requirement for a single medical report to support a claim, and the option for a discretionary uplift of up to 20% in exceptional cases. The review process highlighted challenges in determining prognosis due to inconsistencies in medical reporting. The Ministry of Justice has committed to working with the pre-action protocol medical report provider MedCo to improve the clarity and quality of medical reports, and we welcome that commitment.

I understand that the Treasury is due to report later this month on whether insurers have, in fact, passed savings from these reforms on to policyholders—the primary, or certainly an important, aim of the policy’s original intention. It is important that motorists receive the anticipated lower premiums. We look forward to the findings of the review, and it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that it is on track.

Furthermore, while the statutory instrument is limited to amending tariff amounts, it forms part of a wider framework of reforms to be reviewed. A post-implementation review of the whiplash reform programme is due to take place in 2025-26, and we welcome the opportunity to assess its effectiveness in delivering fair compensation and maintaining access to justice.

We support the regulations and recognise their role in ensuring that claimants continue to receive fair and proportionate compensation. We look forward to the continued monitoring of the system to ensure that it remains balanced and effective. Given the extensive and thorough review of the regulations provided by the Minister, I do not seek to comment any further.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for the support of the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition on the direction of travel.

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), for reminding us that behind every claim is a person, and that this is about helping real people and real lives. The official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), rightly mentioned the report on reducing insurance costs for consumers. We share his and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s concern about that, which I think is felt across the House.

The report was published on 27 March and shows that the whiplash reforms have reduced insurance costs for customers. It was produced by His Majesty’s Treasury, which worked with the Financial Conduct Authority to fulfil its statutory obligation under section 11(7) of the Civil Liability Act 2018. Although it is a factual reporting of the information from insurers provided to HMT through the Financial Conduct Authority, it does not represent the Government’s view, so it is right and proper that, separately from the report, the Ministry of Justice will undertake a post-implementation review of the whiplash reforms later this year. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am sure I heard the Minister ask for the leave of the House at the beginning of his remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Dear, dear, dear me. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman’s amnesia is as bad as ever: 14 whole years appear to have disappeared entirely from his memory. He talks about parliamentary sovereignty, but when his party was in government and he was a Secretary of State or a Minister, he appeared never to know what on earth parliamentary sovereignty was or how to exercise power.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather distressed that my approach has led to a pause in the guidelines, that I will introduce a Bill that will deal with the offending bit of this guideline, and that I will consider the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council ahead of the sentencing Bill later this year. I understand that it must be very disappointing for him that he has been exposed as someone who is all talk and no action, and that I get the job done. I can see that that annoys him greatly.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to begin by apologising to the country, as I often invite him to do when we have our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. In 14 years, he never appeared to discover any of the things that he now discusses regularly from the Opposition Benches. He did nothing about those matters when he was a member of the Government that ran the country. Perhaps that is the problem: the Conservatives never really ran the country; they gave up on the job. He never rolled up his sleeves and put in the hard work to get the job done. That is why we inherited prisons on the brink of collapse, and why I am now unwinding all the mistakes that his party made and the guidance that he and his party welcomed.

The right hon. Gentleman did not tell me what discussions he has had with the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). Before the Conservatives explain why they are so het up about things now, they should explain why they welcomed those things when they were in office. There was no answer to those questions. I do not believe that there were many questions in that diatribe from the shadow Justice Secretary.

On sentencing, the pause in the guideline was communicated—that is a matter for the Sentencing Council. I will, of course, engage with the judiciary to ensure that all is understood regarding the pause. Nothing has changed in relation to the ordering of pre-sentencing reports by judges in all the circumstances in which they would ordinarily do so. The guideline is what has been paused, and it will now not come into effect until Parliament has had its say. The right hon. Gentleman references two individuals. That is the difference between me and him: I do not make it personal. I just focus on the job, and I get the job done.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Mother of the House.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I realise that this is not a popular view in the House, but the Justice Secretary will be aware that some of us are astonished that she thinks our judges are so weak-minded as to be affected by what are guidelines in relation to how they sentence black and brown defendants.

The Justice Secretary will be aware that report after report and repeated statistical analysis have demonstrated what some of us consider to be unfairness in relation to black and brown people and the criminal justice system. She will also be aware that the reason the Sentencing Council was made a statutory independent body was to avoid even the appearance of ministerial interference in sentencing. This is not the United States; our political and judicial systems are entirely separate. Can she explain why she is so triumphant about not just interfering in sentencing, but passing a piece of legislation to cut across what the Sentencing Council is saying?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her questions—at least she asks some proper questions. She says that her view on the policy might be an unpopular one, but this is the place where views on policy, popular or unpopular, can and should be debated. That is at the heart of my disagreement with the Sentencing Council on the guideline.

I think that the matters that my right hon. Friend raises in relation to race and the disparities in the criminal justice system are the proper preserve of politicians. The answer to how we deal with those issues will be a policy answer, and it is for the Government, the Opposition and other Members to debate that policy answer and pursue it through Parliament. That is why I reject entirely the suggestion that anything I have done impinges upon the independence of the judiciary or calls into question the separation of powers in this country.

The Sentencing Council is itself a creature of statute; it is only 15 years old. It is entirely proper for a politician—a Government Minister, the Lord Chancellor—to assert that there is a boundary between that which is policy and a matter for Parliament and that which is judicial practice and consistency in judicial cases. I have sought to reassert that boundary. I look forward to working with Members with differing views from across the House in considering the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. As I have said, I will return to those matters in the coming months.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

There is only one group in this House that lost control of our justice system: the decimated former Government on the Opposition Benches. Overcrowded prisons, reoffending through the roof, victims waiting for justice—what a disgrace. That disgrace continues today through the downplaying of the impact of intergenerational trauma—of which child abuse is a form—by the shadow Justice Secretary.

I thank the Lord Chancellor for engaging with me on this issue in advance of her statement. Our criminal justice system’s ability to take someone’s freedom away is one of the most humbling powers that it holds, which is why sentencing decisions must include all available information. Pre-sentence reports are a critical part of that process. She mentioned pregnant women, survivors of domestic abuse and survivors of modern slavery as important examples of where that is considered. However, because everybody has a context, the Liberal Democrats believe that such reports should consistently be made available whenever anyone’s liberty is at stake. We will therefore scrutinise the legislation through that lens of equality before the law.

It is rich of the Conservatives to complain about inequality in our justice system when it was they who presided over a state of affairs in which someone from one our country’s most deprived areas is 10 times more likely to be in prison than someone from the least deprived, someone who looks like me is four times more likely to be stopped and searched than others, and people with special educational needs represent half the prison population compared to a fifth of the general population. Will the Justice Secretary outline how she will fairly tackle those disparities to restore confidence in the justice system, which was so shattered by the Conservative party?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his questions. He is right: as I said in my statement, pre-sentence reports are an incredibly vital tool for judges. In fact, the requirement is that they should ask for a pre-sentence report unless the court considers it unnecessary to do so. There is a strong push towards obtaining pre-sentence reports in the vast majority of cases. The Probation Service that I inherited from the previous Administration has struggled under increased workloads. It was a service that the Conservative party privatised and then partly renationalised—our Probation Service officers, who do vital work every single day, have been through the mill.

I have been making changes to the focus of the Probation Service in the last few months to pivot its work to focus on high and medium-risk offenders and free up probation capacity, so that more time can be spent doing vital work such as the preparation of pre-sentence reports. I will carry on working with the Probation Service to ensure it is ready to do what is asked of it, to a very high and consistent standard, which I know will be important to all Members. I have already announced 1,300 extra probation officers in the financial year that has just passed and another 1,000 in the coming financial year. Probation remains vital to the preparation of pre-sentence reports, and we will ensure it is in a position to meet the asks that are made of it.

On the hon. Gentleman’s wider points about disparities across the criminal justice system, I thank him for the spirit in which he has engaged with me on those matters. I have the same concerns as him, but I believe we should understand what the latest data is showing us. That is why I have asked for a review of all the current data, and we should test any solutions we come up with. They are policy solutions, so they would have to be debated and passed in this House, and politicians are ultimately responsible at the ballot box for the choices they make, but those solutions have to work—they have to yield a change in these disparities. That is what I want to test.

In my engagement with the Sentencing Council on this particular guideline, it has accepted that the causes of the disparities are unclear, and no one is sure whether the changes to pre-sentence reports would make a difference anyway. I am not willing to sacrifice public confidence in the criminal justice system or chip away at the idea of equality before the law for solutions that are appropriate for debate in this place and that we are not even sure would work. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman closely in the coming weeks and months on these issues.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Sentencing Council is a judicial body whose president is the Lady Chief Justice and whose chair is a distinguished Court of Appeal judge. Its function was previously executed by the Court of Appeal. It is fully independent but is linked to Parliament, not least because the Justice Committee is a statutory consultee for all its guidelines, including those under discussion today. Its judicial leadership, independence and democratic accountability are its strength and a primary reason it is held in high esteem in the criminal justice system. Will the Lord Chancellor reassure me that those attributes will remain integral to the council, whatever changes are proposed in the current legislation, sentencing review and sentencing Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he gives me an opportunity at the conclusion of my statement to support the Probation Service. In all of the Tory party’s terrible legacy in the criminal justice system, including prisons on the point of collapse, what it did to the Probation Service was unconscionable. This Government are putting things right. I have already made changes to the Probation Service, and I will ensure that it is on the strongest possible footing going into the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for her statement.

Arbitration Bill [Lords]

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 2 to 18 stand part.

May I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker? Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair, Madam Chairman or Mr Chairman are also acceptable.

Violence against Women and Girls

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde]

On the subject of charities that support victims and survivors, yesterday I met representatives of Victim Support. They shared that, at a time when demand for their services is surging, they are facing a 7% real-terms cut in funding because of the increase in national insurance contributions, as well as cuts to police and crime commissioner budgets. Does the hon. Member agree that we should be doing more to support—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. If I am going to get every Member in—and I would very much like to do so—interventions must be short.

[Shockat Adam]

I agree with the hon. Member, which is why I have raised the issue of national insurance on a couple of occasions. In fact, Jasmine House, which supports women who are the victims of rape and already has a two-year waiting list, was looking to add an extra member of staff, but is now going to reduce its number of staff members. It just cannot afford it, because of the rise in national insurance contributions.

With 8,000 cases of domestic violence being reported to the police in Leicester alone, it is clear that we need to ensure that the charity sector receives increased long-term funding, and that the police receive the best possible training on how to help the victims and investigate the cases. From our side, we offer cross-party support to help the Government however we can, to make sure that we can help with this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray]

I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution, because it will be for both genders to step up. We can see concepts of masculinity transforming before our eyes, exacerbated by the internet but also by political interventions. It is incumbent upon us—the younger generation of men—to stand up and face that head on.

Trafficking is one of the most extreme kinds of violence against women. It is happening all over the UK right now. We can do more to stop it, and we must.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

We now have a three-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for her opening speech. Equally, as hon. Members across the House have done, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), for her continued championing of this hugely important issue. I will take a moment to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for their incredible strength in telling us their personal stories. I am genuinely ashamed to live in a society where some people see it as acceptable to go up to a woman and tell her that they want to rape her. I find that disgusting. The sad reality is, many of us are not surprised by that. Women I know have experienced online abuse where exactly that sort of language has been used towards them. It is not acceptable. It is disgusting. I am ashamed that we live in a society where that happens.

I want to take a moment—I have only got a moment—to thank two local champions in my constituency who have done so much to raise this important issue time and again: Councillor Lanie Shears and Councillor Kay Morrison. Every year on White Ribbon Day, Kay organises a vigil in Harlow town centre where she and other community champions read out the name of every single woman and girl who has been killed by a man in the previous 12 months. That takes 20 minutes. Last year, they raised a motion on Harlow council calling on all councillors, council leaders and civic leaders to lead by example in their strategic leadership, in changing cultures, in raising awareness and in engaging with men and boys, because, as the Minister said at the start of the debate, everybody needs to play their part to get this right.

I really recommend that everybody does the White Ribbon training, which gives practical advice on how we can support women. But this issue is about more than that. It does not start with attacks on women or rape or murder. It starts with comments in the workplace—misogyny and banter. That is what needs to change. We have to change the culture. We have to educate men and boys. We have to say, “Enough is enough.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Trial of Lucy Letby

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Whip to move the motion for the Adjournment, I remind the House that although there are currently no live proceedings before the courts, there is still the potential for further civil or criminal proceedings. Members will therefore wish to take care to avoid saying anything that could prejudice any case that might come before the courts in future.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Christian Wakeford.)